Madras High Court
The Manager vs M.K. Ramadass on 8 November, 2010
Author: V.Periya Karuppiah
Bench: V.Periya Karuppiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:08-11-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRP.PD.No.1116 of 1995 The Manager Arakonam Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Arakonam N.A.A. District .. Petitioner Vs. M.K. Ramadass .. Respondent Prayer:-This Revision has been filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the order and decree dated 24.11.1994 of the learned District Judge of North Arcot Ambedkar district at Vellore in I.A.No.258 of 1993 in G.W.O.P.No.43 of 1992. For Petitioner : Ms. G. Devi For Respondent : Ms.N. Parameswari ORDER
This revision has been filed against the order passed by the lower court in allowing I.A. No. 258 of 1993 in G.W.O.P.No.43 of 1992 dated 24.11.1994 an application filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to render account for the interest accrued till the amount is sent to this court and to deposit the balance amount due into court.
2. Heard Ms. G. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.N. Parameswari, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in her argument that the order passed by the lower court is not a considered order and it did not deal with the arguments submitted by the petitioner before the lower court. She would further submit in her argument that the payment of further interest to the deposit would not be payable since the deposit in question was not renewed by the respondent. She would further submit in her argument that the payment of interest in the absence of renewal of deposit is contrary to the regulations laid by the Reserve Bank of India and therefore the order of deposit has to be set aside. She would also submit in her argument that the petitioner is not liable to pay any interest as the rules and regulations governing the said bank would not entail the petitioner to award interest for the deposit which were not renewed. She would therefore, request the court to set aside the order passed by the lower court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit in her argument that the respondent has approached the lower court in G.W.O.P.No.43 of 1992 for the reason that the petitioner/bank has asked the respondent to get the permission of the court to withdraw the fixed deposit since there was a dispute in payment of the fixed deposit invested by P. Krishnasamy Naidu, the father of the respondent and the grandfather the then minor Senthilkumar. She would further submit in her argument that the letter written by the petitioner/bank on 07.09.1990, after the maturity of the fixed deposit, instructed the respondent to approach the court to get an order of permission and therefore, there is no laches on the part of the respondent in prolonging the period of fixed deposit and the lower court has also ordered permission in favour of the respondent to direct the petitioner/bank to deposit the said amount with interest and the petitioner had wantonly deposited the fixed deposit money with interest upto the maturity period only and the subsequent interest was not deposited by the petitioner/bank. She would also submit in her argument that the petitioner/bank was liable to pay interest to the subsequent period also eventhough there was no extension to renew the said deposit since the petitioner/bank alone had asked for the permission of the court for the disbursal of the said fixed deposit amount to the respondent as guardian for the ward, the then minor Senthilkumar. She would further submit in her argument that the lower court was correct in issuing a direction to the petitioner/bank to deposit the subsequent interest and accordingly the petitioner/bank has also deposited a sum of Rs.19,708/- towards the subsequent interest and the same was invested by the lower court in Union Bank of India, Konavattam Branch, Vellore district for 36 months for the maturity value of Rs.28099/-. She would further submit that the said amount was lawfully directed to be paid by the lower court in favour of the minor/ward as bequeathed under the will of his grandfather. The said amount was withdrawn by the petitioner/bank on the strength of the ex-parte order passed earlier in this revision and the said amount should have been directed to be paid by the petitioner/bank to the respondent. She would further submit in her argument that the petitioner/bank is liable to pay interest for the said fixed deposit till the date of passing order by the lower court since it had the benefit of the said deposited amount with it. Moreover, the said delay in paying the amount by the petitioner/bank to the respondent was only due to the insistence of the petitioner/bank, for court's permission. She would also submit that the Reserve Bank rules was to the effect that no interest can be paid when the fixed deposit was not renewed cannot be applied to the present case.
5. Since the said keeping of the deposit at the hands of the petitioner/bank's was only due to the petitioner/bank's instruction to get court permission. Therefore, lower court was right in directing the petitioner/bank to deposit the said amount into court and accordingly it was paid and invested in Union Bank of India as already submitted. She would further submit in her argument that the withdrawal of the investment made in Union Bank of India was ordered to be paid to the petitioner/bank by the lower court and it was sheerly a mistake and no notice was ordered to the respondent. She would rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court reported in 2009 1 SCC 510 in between Om Prakash Marwaha (d) Thr. Lrs and Ors. vs. Jagdish Lal Marwaha (d) Thr. Lrs for the principle that no man shall be prejudiced by the act of the court. Therefore, she would request the court that there is no valid reason submitted by the petitioner for interfering with the orders passed by the lower court and therefore, the revision may be dismissed.
6. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side.
7. The indisputed facts are that the respondent on behalf of minor/ward Senthil Kumar had applied for permission before the lower court in G.W.O.P.No.43 of 1992 seeking permission to withdraw the fixed deposit amount of Rs.86,000/- with interest deposited on 10.08.1988 for a period of two years by one P. Krishnasamy Naidu who bequeathed the same in favour of the minor/ward namely Sentilkumar at the instruction given by the petitioner/bank through its communication dated 07.09.1990 and the said petition was allowed by the lower court on 13.08.1992 and the fixed deposit money was directed to be refunded and accordingly a sum of Rs.1,04,132/- was refunded through D.D.No.903385 dated 14.10.1992. Subsequently, the respondent has applied for a direction to the petitioner to render account regarding the interest accrued till the amount was sent to the court and to deposit the balance amount due before the lower court, in I.A.No.258 of 1993 and the said petition was allowed by the lower court and accordingly the petitioner/bank has calculated the interest and deposit a sum of Rs.19,708/- to the credit of G.W.O.P.No.43 of 1992 and the said amount was in turn invested in a fixed deposit for a period of 36 months by the lower court on 07.07.1995 with Union Bank of India, Konavattam branch and the maturity value payable on 07.07.1998 was Rs.28099/-. Against the order passed by the lower court the petitioner/bank has preferred the present revision. In an earlier occasion this court had passed an order of allowing the revision ex-parte and consequently the order passed by the lower court was set aside. In pursuance of the said order the fixed deposit amount kept with Union Bank of India, Konavattam branch for the maturity value of Rs.28099/- was withdrawn by the petitioner/bank and the lower court had also ordered disbursement of the said amount since the revision was allowed and the lower court's order was set aside on 28.07.1995. The said ex-parte order passed by this court was set aside on 20.09.2010 and in the meanwhile the lower court had permitted the petitioner/bank to withdraw the invested money kept in the Union Bank of India and in the said proceeding, no notice was issued to the respondent.
8. In the backdrop of the case, we have to see whether the order passed by the lower court is justifiable and liable to be confirmed. The only point to be seen in this revision would be whether the petitioner/bank is liable to pay interest even after the maturity period namely 10.02.1990 till a permission is given to the respondent for withdrawal of the said amount from the petitioner/bank.
9. Admittedly, no instruction was given for the extension of the said deposit held by the petitioner/bank. The person P. Krishnasamy Naidu who has to give instruction for extension was no more and the deposit was pending before the lower court, for the permission to be granted by the court for withdrawal of the fixed deposit held by the petitioner/bank. It is the petitioner/bank who asked the respondent, the guardian of the then minor/ward Senthilkumar to obtain permission from the court through its communication dated 07.09.1990. Certainly the communication was issued only after the lapse of the period of the fixed deposit. The delay caused in keeping the deposit with the petitioner/bank was purely as per the request of the petitioner/bank. The Reserve Bank rules as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner which was also extracted in the counter filed by the petitioner before the lower court would give an option to the petitioner/bank to award interest. The said rule does not prohibit the awarding of interest in an appropriate case. Since the delay caused in payment of the said fixed deposit with accrued interest was only due to the petitioner/bank, for obtaining permission from the court, it is duty of the bank who held the deposit has to pay the interest as long as the fixed deposit was held by the bank itself. The petitioner/bank is certainly liable to pay interest for the subsequent period eventhough it has not been extended by the person who is competent to do so.
10. In these circumstances, the order passed by the lower court is not interfereable. However, on the strength of the ex-parte order passed by the court in the revision on the earlier occasion, the petitioner/bank has withdrawn the money from the fixed deposit with the disbursal order passed by the lower court. Admittedly no notice was issued by the lower court before passing an order of such disbursal of said amount to the respondent. That is purely a mistake on the part of the lower court in not ordering notice to the respondent. It is a celebrated maxim 'actus curia neminem gravabit' that no person shall be prejudiced by the act of court. The judgment reported in 2009 1 SCC 510 in between Om Prakash Marwaha (d) Thr. Lrs and Ors. vs. Jagdish Lal Marwaha (d) Thr. Lrs would explain the said point clearly. The relevant passage would run thus:
"In support of his submission, Mr. Iyer firstly referred to a decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Jang Singh vs. Brij Lal, [AIR 1966 SC 1631] wherein this Court was called upon to consider whether a litigant should suffer on account of the lapse made by an officer of the Court. Applying the well known maxim, actus curiae neminem gravabit - that an act of Court should do no harm to a litigant, this Court held that the mistake should be rectified by the Court and the parties relegated to the position on the date when the mistake occurred..."
Therefore, the respondent should have been given a remedy in the circumstances of the case. The money invested under the fixed deposit receipt in Union Bank of India, Konvattam branch for the maturity value of Rs.28,099/- by petitioner/bank. The said money withdrawn by the petitioner/bank shall be redeposited by the petitioner bank with interest and the amount repayable by the bank is restricted by the respondent at Rs.28099/- being the maturity value of the fixed amount. However, it has been brought to the notice of the court that minor/ward Senthilkumar has attained the age of majority, Therefore, it has become necessary to issue a direction to the petitioner/bank to deposit the sum of Rs.28,099/- into the court to the credit of G.W.O.P.No. 43 of 1992 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit the ward Senthilkumar is entitled to withdraw the said amount from the court on proper identification in the presence of the respondent. In default to deposit the said amount by the petitioner/bank, the petitioner/bank is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till the date of realisation on the said amount of Rs.28,099/- and the respondent or the then minor Senthilkumar are entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner/bank.
11. With the aforesaid observation the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
08.11.2010.
Index :Yes/No
Web :Yes/No
Note:Issue order copy on 15.11.2010
kpr
To,
The District Judge
North Arcot Ambedkar district at Vellore
V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J.
kpr
CRP.PD.No.1116 of 1995
08.11.2010